(The Vedas are the oldest scriptures
of Hinduism. They date back to around 4000BC approximately or even older. They are written in an archaic language, so ancient
that when Sanskrit as a language was codified ordinary people had already started forgetting the meanings of the verses. The
great pundits of the time therefore started to write commentaries and grammar books on them. Even today, it is not possible
to translate the verses without these texts. However today's scholars also have the help of comparing them with other languages.)

Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Haq declare
that Atharva Veda, Kanda (chapter)
20, Mantras 126-137 prefigures about Muhammad. This portion is known as Kuntap sukta. He says
that the word Kuntap means to consume sin and misery,
and it is composed from Kuh (sin and misery) and tap (to consume). This is not wholly correct. The Gopatha Brahman defines
the term as "that which burns away whatever is evil or ugly". However the meaning is close enough. But he goes onto say that
the word Kuntap also means "the ‘hidden glands in the abdomen,’ inferring the true meaning to be revealed only
to those who are able to develop sufficient insight". It is a pity that he does not give his source for this meaning. But
apparently he has developed sufficient insight to read its hidden meaning: that this meaning proves it is actually a reference
to Meccawhich is called navel
of the earth by Muslims. Then Dr.Naik and Dr. Haq "shows that the word "Kuntap is derived from Bakkah (Makkah). In the analysis
of Sanskrit and Arabic words having the same meaning … , the word ‘b’ in Arabic is used as ‘p’
in Sanskrit (in our times, one example is that of soft drink Pepsi; it is written and pronounced as Bebsi in the Arab world).
A certain ‘t’ in Arabic becomes silent and pronounced as h depending on its position in that word … For
example, ‘tun’ in Medinatun is replaced by h when pronounced (both t and n are dropped). Further, many Sanskrit
words having parallel in Arabic are written backwards … Thus one can see the similarity between the word Kuntap and
Bakkah (each containing letters k, n, t, p)".

This once again is absolutely childish,
on the same level as Brahma and Abraham. "Kuyang ang nam kutsitang bhavati taddopatti , tasmat [from there] Kuntap" --- the
letters k, u, n, t, a, p all come from the Sanskrit words in the definition. (I have used Roman alphabets for the ordinary
reader, though the pronunciation is not absolutely accurately transcribed thereby). Also, another term for the Kuntap sukt
is left out. It is also called 'Khila-parva' meaning supplement; these verses are taken mostly from the Rig-Veda and are not
considered to be of any great importance. Indeed many translations skip this chapter altogether, which no doubt Dr.Naik and
Dr. Vidyarthi felt can only help their cause.

(Just to muddy the waters further,
a Hindu has argued that the word Mecca comes from the Sanskrit root Makh or Yajna; the name Mohammad is a derivative of Krishna's
another name, Madan Mohan and the word Aab (water) comes from the pure Sanskrit word Aap meaning water. We have exactly the
same type of argument here that Vidyarthi/Haq gives, except that it is turned upside down: but the latter is equally valid
in its methodology as the former. In fact since no analysis is given that can expose its weaknesses, -- only an assertion
is made --- the Hindu claim appears more valid!).

The writers say that the third Mantra
of the Kuntap Sukt translated by someone called Pandit Raja Ram is:

They go onto explain " The root of
the word Mamah is Mah which means to esteem highly, honor, revere, to magnify and to exalt. The word "Mohammad" means "the
praised one" in Arabic. Therefore, Mamah is synonymous with Mohammad when the full meaning of the verse is considered. The
'd' dropped as in the case of Mamah (Mohammad, which is derived from root letters h, m, and d)". It is a very ingenious explanation.
Alas! the only problem is that Mamah is not a single word nor a name. It is a combination of two words 'mamo' and 'ahe', meaning
"to me".

Then Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq go on to
explain the 'hidden' (!) symbolism in the line. The hundred gold coins apparently refer to the early companions of Prophet
Muhammad,. The ten chaplets refer to ten companions of Prophet Muhammad, who were given the good news of Paradise
by the Prophet. Three Hundred Good Steeds (horses of Arab Breed) refers to those companions of Prophet Muhammad who fought
at ‘Badr.’ We are told that though their actual number was 313, in many prophecies the numbers are usually rounded
up. Ten Thousand Cows refer to ten thousand companions who accompanied the Prophet when he conquered Mecca. The interpretation is based on a hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol. 9, number 159,
where Muhammad narrates a dream where cows symbolize the believers. Is there any other evidence to suggest that the hymn is
a symbol of anything, far less of the meaning the writers finds? There is not. Also both of them reveal their shoddy Vedic
scholarship when they declare "The Sanskrit word Arvah means a swift Arab horse particularly used by Asuras (non-Aryans)".
In the Vedas the Asuras are not non-Aryans; gods like Indra and Varuna are addressed as 'Asur' which simply means 'lord'.
It was far later that Asuras came to symbolize demons.

They then give their version of the
mantras 1 through 13 of the Kuntap Sukt which according to them is amassed from some Hindu Pundits. However the work of Griffith
and Whitney are usually considered sufficient :

1. Listen to this O people! a
praiseworthy shall be praised. O Kaurama we have received among the Rushamas sixty thousand and ninety. [population of Makkah at the time of Prophet’s triumphant entry in Makkah].

The Rusama is mentioned in RigVeda
as a protégé of Indra, and is elsewhere referred to as a community which has nothing to do with Mecca. Kaurama is the alternative name for Kaurava, a generous donor in the community.

2. Twenty camels draw his carriage,
with him being also his wives. The top of that carriage or chariot bows down escaping from touching the heaven.

The accepted wording Whose twice
ten buffaloes move right along, together with their cows; the height of his chariot just misses the heaven which recedes from
its touch. You can find an accurate and famous translation of Vedas here . I have never heard of camels being used by INDIANS in Vedic Times, nor can you make notice of camels in
any of Hindu Scriptures.

3. He gave the Mamah Rishi a hundred
gold coins, ten chaplets, three hundred steeds and ten thousand cows.

As noted earlier it is not the Mamah
rishi, but simply rishi.

4. Disseminate the truth, O ye
who glorifies [Ahmad], disseminate the truth, just
as a bird sings on a ripe fruited tree. Thy lips and tongue move swiftly like the sharp blade of a pair of shears. [The Prophet’s state when he received revelation through Archangel Jibril (Gabriel)].

Again, the standard translation is
"Glut thee o singer, glut thee, like a bird on a ripefruited tree".However, the term 'narasansha' which is translated as singer,
can also mean someone who praises. Someone who praises is not praiseworthy. Narasansha doesn’t equate to Muhammad. Apparently
this version is relied on, so that it can be equated with Ahmad.

5. The praying ones with their
prayers hurry on like powerful bulls. Only their children are at home, and at home do they wait for the cows. [Cows refers to companions of the Prophet. Prophet’s companions strict adherence
to five daily prayers at appointed times. Refers to Battles of Badr, Uhud, and Ahzab (Ditch or Allies)].

The actual translation is”The
chanters with their pious song hurry on blithely as cows; at home are their children, and at home the cows do they attend”.

6. O you who praises (the Lord),
hold fast the wisdom, which earns cows and good things. Disseminate this among the divines, just as an archer places his shaft
on the right point. [wisdom of the Qur’an].

Again, here the standard translation
is "O singer bring thou forth the hymns..." . They say this verse in wisdom of Qur’an. Now if that is the case, Vedas
were written severalyears before the OT,NT and Qur’an. Then why don’t
muslims read Vedas instead? Look how the translation has been played with and changed to their convenience.

7. Sing the high praise of the
king of the world or the Light of the Universe, who is a god and the best among men. He is a guide to all people and gives
shelter to everyone. [Prophet Mohammed's qualities].

The standard translation is, "Sing
the praise of Pariksit, the sovereign whom all people love, the king who ruleth over all, excelling mortals as a god".
The name Parikshit is definitely mentioned. Parikshit is the name of a king of the Kaurava line, though it cannot be ascertained
whether this is the same king mentioned in Mahabharata. However, this name is left out. Apparently even the writer's imagination
has a hard time trying to prove that Parikshit is another name for Muhammad.

8. He who affords shelter to everybody,
gave peace to the world, as soon as he mounted the throne. Men in Kuru-land are talking of his peace-making at the time of
the building of the house. [Kuru means one who protects a house in Hebrew
and Kore means a house. It refers to the first house of worship, the Ka’bah. In this sense, Kuru-land means the land of Koreish.
This Mantra refers to the rebuilding of the Kabah five years before Mohammed's prophethood and his role in peace-making when
each tribe of the Koreish (Quraish) wanted the sole honor to put the Black Stone at its right place and disputed to the point
of threats to fight each other. The Black Stone is a celestial material and is the only remaining part of the original building
material of the Ka'bah].

Standard translation: "Mounting his
throne Parikshit best of all hath given us peace and rest, saith a Kaurava to his wife as he is ordering his house". A Kaurava
is a member of the Kuru clan, descended from Kuru, whatever may be its meaning in Hebrew. Also why are the specific terms
husband (pati) and wife (jaya) left out? I am sure the writer could have found some hidden significance in them as well, if
only he had worked hard.

9. In the realm of the King, who
gives peace and protection to all, a wife asks her husband whether she should set before him curd or some other liquor. [Due to Prophet’s protection and commandments, women could travel freely long distances
without any escort or fear].

Really? Do you see any correlation
between the words in the actual verses and the meaning these two muslims try to give it? Above all, liqour is mentioned. I
have never heard of any men drinking liqour when Muhammad lived, as he prohibited liqour.

10. The ripe barley springs up
from the cleft and rises towards heavens. The people prosper in the reign of the king who gives protection to all. [people rise from the depth of degradation to the height of glory].

From what degradation did Muhammad
lift up the arabs? He said sex outside marriage is bad. Well, that was indeed older in INDIA! Everyone followed it and believed it and forbid pre-marital sex. Instead
Muhammad set a great example(not exception because muslims repeat it) by marrying a kid. Is that degrading or glorifying?

11. Indra awoke the singer of
his praises and asked him to go to the people in every direction. He was asked to glorify Indra, the mighty and all pious
men would appreciate his effort and God would bestow on him His rewards. [The
Prophet sent letters to several kings and rulers in every direction inviting them to Islam].

What do Mr.Naik/ Mr.Haq want to tell?
They tell Indra = Allah!!!In Hinduism Indra is god
of weather and war ,and Lord of
Heaven or Swargaloka He was also an important
figure in non-Hindu traditions. Mythology is that, Indra is also cursed by the supreme power. The supreme power is the only
GOD, and INDRA is supposedly a Demi-God. Refer here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra#The_curse_on_Indra . Well,
there is mythology that Indra rode on chariots. Does Allah drive a chariot or BMW?? How ridiculous!Only someone very determined
to prove his thesis can find that these verses refer to Islamic history.

12. Cows, horses and men multiply
and increase here, because here rules the one who is bountiful and splendidly generous who gives thousands in charity and
sacrifice. [qualities of the Last Prophet].

Here another reference to a demi
god is left out : "Here, O cattle, ye shall be born, here, ye horses, here, ye domestics! And Pûshan also, who bestows a thousand
(cows) as sacrificial reward, settles down here.".Pushan means Muhammad? No
way! Pushan is again a demi-God.

13. O Indra, let these cows be
safe, and let not their master be harmed. And let not an enemy, O Indra, or a robber overpower them. [Indra refers to God and cows to saintly followers of the Prophet].

The so-called schollars(for dollars??)
is not quiet upto the latest researches done by his other Muslim colleagues. They are assiduously writing that Indra as the
god of war and leader of Aryans, is the cruel enslaver of the indigenous inhabitants of Indiaand is the first terrorist in the world. They very much contradict each other
in their own terms!

As can be
seen the writer very carefully leaves out certain words and gives others another meaning than commonly associated with them.
However, even that is not enough to turn the verses into predictions about Muhammad. Read in the ordinary manner the verses
simply show a picture of a kingdom thriving under a benevolent king; these are simply hymns of praise. He therefore has to
take the help of symbolism. The source of his symbolism cannot be found in the Vedas themselves --- he simply imposes them
arbitrarily in order to suit his theory. Only the eye of faith can produce such an interpretation of the hymn.

Then these two quote
a verse from Sama Veda, II:6,8: "Ahmad acquired religious law (Shariah)
from his Lord. This religious law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the sun." They get the translation
almost right with a peculiarly Islamic twist. The proper translation is, "I from my Father have obtained deep knowledge of
eternal Law; I was born like unto the Sun". As for 'Ahmad', once again it is a typical example of sleight-of-hand like Mamah.
The actual Sanskrit term is 'ahammiddhi' , 'aham' meaning “ I”.

To clinch the matter,
the scholars then quote from Rig Veda V, 27, 1: "The wagon-possessor, the truthful and truth-loving, extremely wise, powerful and generous, Mamah [Mohammad] has favored
me with his words. The son of the All-powerful, possessing all good attributes, the mercy for the worlds has become famous
with ten thousand [companions]."

However, the standard
translation of this verse reads, "The Godlike hero, famousest of nobles, hath granted me two oxen with a wagon. Trvrsan's
son Tryaruna hath distinguished himself, Vaisvanara Agni! with ten thousands". "Vaisvanara" is another name for the fire-god,
but it is not known with certainty who Trvrsan or his son might be. However, Haq leaves out the reference to the Fire-god.
Trvsran becomes another name for Allah (on the grounds perhaps that there is a possibility that the name can refer to a god)
while the name Tryaruna is omitted altogether. Instead he once again falls back on the standby of Mamah. Apparently wherever
the particular combination of letters forming the word 'mamah', whether alone or whether occurring in combination of other
letters in a word, it is employed to prove that it indicates Muhammad. The maximum the verse can be stretched to read is that,
"O fire, lord of mankind! the protector of the righteous, extremely wise, lordly (incidentally the term employed here is 'asura')
and rich, Trivsran's son Tryaruna has given me two cows yoked to a wagon and ten thousand gold pieces and thus gained fame".
The singer of the verse is being favoured not with words of wisdom but with material gifts. One cannot call Haq's translation
anything other than a lie. Not surprisingly he leaves the rest of the hymn alone. In it the singer explains that the king
had given him these gifts because he had pleased him with his praise and he asks the gods to grant happiness to the donor.
Further Dr.Zakir Naik in his site says

Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda

A similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:

The Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well praised which
in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).

It speaks about Indra, a
praise to Indra and not Muhammad!! Dr.Naik Susrava is singular. Susravas = plural. Group of praiseworthy people. So it does
not point to Muhammad!

5. The last premise would be logic. Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq seem to commit several logical fallacies. They tend to contradict
each other. They say they don’t believe in HINDU scriptures once. You can find how Zakir Naik criticizes Hindu way of
worship in a section called “Conveying Islam To A Hindu”. But still he uses Hindu scriptures’ authority
to prove Muhammad’s prophethood and Islam’s validity! Either this proves

*Hindu religion is truly
divine.

* Allah did not give enough
proofs in Qur’an to sustain his claims.

* All muslims must convert
to Hinduism.

* Muslim scholars are bluffing
to convert Hindus just like they do to Christian.

Another claim of Muhammad being Kalki Avatar is also doing rounds. Due to space and time
constraint, let me tell you, AVATAR = GOD INCARNATE. Muhammad was a normal arab who did nothing! Kalki Avatar will have 8
superhuman qualities. Muhammad had none. For a more detailed explanation, of why Muhammad cannot be Kalki Avatar can be found
here.

A Point To Ponder Upon

The Vedas are supposed
to be most supreme text of Hindus along with the Gita. There are 4 Vedas.

The number of verses in the Rig
Veda total 10800

The Number of verses in Atharva Veda total 5987

The Number of verses in Yajur Veda total 2000

The number of verses in Sama Veda total 1875

Therefore, length of Vedas =10800 + 5987 + 2000 + 1875 = 20662

Length
of Qur’an = 6346

Ratio = Length of Vedas / Length of Qur’an = 3.255

The Qur’an is thrice as small as Vedas. When muslim scholars take a lots of time
to learn Arabic, memorise Qur’an,read hadiths, do you believe they can learn Sanskrit, or even if not, read such big
Vedas, interpret them, and present it? Some people who get money do this, for them, they just vomit whatever they get on hand
without giving it a thinking. Imagine, Upanishads, Puranas, Bhagavad gita,etc. when put together will take a lifetime to read
and understand them.

I strongly feel, Dr.Ali Sina is of much higher caliber than any of these meek so-called
scholars (for dollars??). Ali doesn’t provide stupid data like these people. Hope Hindus now have a clear idea of what
this hoax of Muhammad in Hindu scriptures are all about. They are nothing but words on water.

Conclusion

The amount of manipulation
and misdirection we see with these men is astonishing. The Islamic propagators are either grossly misled or are apparently
relying on the fact that not enough of their readers will know Sanskrit or bother to look up references. They happily mistranslate
and use symbolism without any shred of proof. One understands their eagerness to prove that Islam is the culmination of every
religion. However one has to wonder, if the faith of the writers like these is so insecure that they have to search in other religions
for legitimacy. Also one
has to wonder what this says of other Muslim scholars who have read the Vedas before. None of them had ever read any of the
meanings that Dr.Naik or Dr.Haq finds; obviously they were either more foolish or less learned than our Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq. However,
the climax comes in this assertion: "The Vedas contain many prophecies about Prophet Muhammad. Some European and Hindu translators
of the Vedas have removed the name referring to the Prophet, while others have tried to explain away the mantras (verses)
on his life events, Ka’bah, Makkah, Medinah, Arabia, and other events using the terminology of the Hindus, such as purification
rituals, and lands and rivers in India". In other words, explain what scholars might like, our good Islamic Sanskrit scholar
knows that they would be lies. Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq operates under the assumption that anyone who tries to refute them is by the
very definition a liar. This assertion is a wonderful way of not having to face the truth. (Of course I personally believe
that Haq's book/ Zakir Naik’s Da’wah material is not meant for either the Hindu or the serious scholar; it is
targeted at the Muslims to strengthen their faith). Hope I have made it clear to many people, especially Hindus about the
lies of Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Abdul Haq, of how they write articles,books,da’wah material,etc. just to fool the ignorant
Hindus, because most Hindus are not fanatically religious and conaequently they don’t read much of their books. Infact
when a Hindu reads this article, he/she will have increased faith in HINDUISM than converting to Islam. Thanks to bad marketing
techniques of Dr.Zakir Naik blemished with lies.